I'm not a libertarian, I'm a Distributist. There's a bit of overlap, especially in the realm of subsidiarity, but I don't subscribe to the idea of popular sovereignty.

With that said, I am not aware of the Church ever teaching that civil government (never mind the barely 200 year old idea of the nation-state) is necessary. Conforms to God's will, yes. Indispensable, no.

I think many times these debates get mucked up by petty semantics of "government", "state" and all that good stuff. When we say state are we talking about a sovereign kingdom under private government or a modern nation state. The modern nation state is drastically different then those prior to it. Many people make the mistake that being an advocate for authoritarian rule makes you a fascist. Not exactly true. Monarchism is private owned government and authoritarian. Fascism is public government and authoritarian. The private public thing plays a large role. In the modern nation state taxation is so high because the government has taken over so many aspects of life that it perviously had no role in. Example: welfare systems use to belong to the church and Christian communities, now they belong to the state. Under monarchy standing armies (for the most part) did not exist, now they do which increases taxation to pay for it. Warfare has gone from private armies fighting private armies over a land dispute to the entire mobilization of the state and economy to long drawn out war followed by nation building..... taxation increases. The point being that the modern nation state is so much larger and covers so many more areas that it previously did not that it now requires massive amounts of taxation to cover.

Furthermore if anyone has read "Democracy the God that Failed", Hoppe states,

Quote:The defining characteristic of private government ownership is that the expropriated resources and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation are individually owned. The appropriated resources are added to the ruler's private estate and treated as if they were a part of it,and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation is attached as a title to this estate and leads to an instant increase in its present value ('capitaliza- tion' of monopoly profit). Most importantly, as private owner of the government estate, the ruler is entitled to pass his possessions onto his personal heir; he may sell, rent, or give away part or all of his privileged estate and privately pocket the receipts from the sale or rental; and he may personally employ or dismiss every administrator and employee of his estate.
In contrast, with a publicly owned government the control over the government apparatus lies in the hands of a trustee, or caretaker. The caretaker may use the apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it. He cannot sell government resources and privately pocket the receipts, nor can he pass government possessions onto his personal heir. He owns the current use of government resources, but not their capital value. Moreover, while entrance into the position of a private owner of government is restricted by the owner's personal discretion, entrance into the position of a caretaker-ruler is open. Anyone, in princi- ple, can become the government's caretaker.
From these assumptions two central, interrelated predictions can be deduced: (1) A private government owner will tend to have a systematically longer planning horizon, i.e., his degree of time preference will be lower, and accordingly, his degree of economic exploitation will tend to be less than that of a government caretaker; and (2), subject to a higher degree of exploitation the nongovernmental public will also be comparatively more present-oriented under a system of publicly- owned government than under a regime of private government owner- ship.
(1) A private government owner will predictably try to maximize his total wealth; i.e., the present value of his estate and his current income. He will not want to increase his current income at the expense of a more than proportional drop in the present value of his assets, and because acts of current income acquisition invariably have repercussions on present asset values (reflecting the value of all future-expected-asset earnings discounted by the rate of time preference), private ownership in and of itself leads to economic calculation and thus promotes farsightedness. 1n the case of the private ownership ofgovernment, this implies a distinct moderation with respect to the ruler's incentive to exploit his monopoly privilege of expropriation, for acts of expropriation are by their nature parasitic upon prior acts of production on the part of the nongovernmental public. Where nothing has first been produced, nothing can be expropriated; and where everything is expropriated, all future production will come to a shrieking halt. Accordingly, a private government owner will want to avoid exploiting his subjects so heavily, for instance, as to reduce his future earnings potential to such an extent that the present value of his estate actually falls. Instead, in order to preserve or possibly even enhance the value of his personal property,he will systematically restrain himself in his exploitation policies. For the lower the degree of exploitation, the more productive the subject population will be; and the more productive the population, the higher will be the value of the ruler's parasitic monopoly of expro- priation. He will use his monopolistic privilege, of course. He will not not exploit. But as the government's private owner, it is in his interest to draw parasitically on a growing, increasingly productive and prosperous nongovernment economy as this would effortlessly also increase his own wealth and prosperity-and the degree of exploitation thus would tend to be low.

(01-20-2016, 03:51 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote: With that said, I am not aware of the Church ever teaching that civil government (never mind the barely 200 year old idea of the nation-state) is necessary. Conforms to God's will, yes. Indispensable, no.

The Church teaches it explicitly:

Catechism Wrote:1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16

16 Cf. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei; Diuturnum illud.

From the cited encyclicals:

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei Wrote:3. It is not difficult to determine what would be the form and character of the State were it governed according to the principles of Christian philosophy. Man's natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties. Hence, it is divinely ordained that he should lead his life-be it family, or civil-with his fellow men, amongst whom alone his several wants can be adequately supplied. But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every body politic must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author. Hence, it follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but from God."(1)

Leo XIII, Diuturnum Wrote:11. And, indeed, nature, or rather God who is the Author of nature, wills that man should live in a civil society; and this is clearly shown both by the faculty of language, the greatest medium of intercourse, and by numerous innate desires of the mind, and the many necessary things, and things of great importance, which men isolated cannot procure, but which they can procure when joined and associated with others. But now, a society can neither exist nor be conceived in which there is no one to govern the wills of individuals, in such a way as to make, as it were, one will out of many, and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good; therefore, God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude. And this also is a powerful argument, that those by whose authority the State is administered must be able so to compel the citizens to obedience that it is clearly a sin in the latter not to obey. But no man has in himself or of himself the power of constraining the free will of others by fetters of authority of this kind. This power resides solely in God, the Creator and Legislator of all things; and it is necessary that those who exercise it should do it as having received it from God. "There is one lawgiver and judge, who is able to destroy and deliver."(13)And this is clearly seen in every kind of power. That that which resides in priests comes from God is so acknowledged that among all nations they are recognized as, and called, the ministers of God. In like manner, the authority of fathers of families preserves a certain impressed image and form of the authority which is in God, "of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named."(14) But in this way different kinds of authority have between them wonderful resemblances, since, whatever there is of government and authority, its origin is derived from one and the same Creator and Lord of the world, who is God.

12. Those who believe civil society to have risen from the free consent of men, looking for the origin of its authority from the same source, say that each individual has given up something of his right,(15) and that voluntarily every person has put himself into the power of the one man in whose person the whole of those rights has been centered. But it is a great error not to see, what is manifest, that men, as they are not a nomad race, have been created, without their own free will, for a natural community of life. It is plain, moreover, that the pact which they allege is openly a falsehood and a fiction, and that it has no authority to confer on political power such great force, dignity, and firmness as the safety of the State and the common good of the citizens require. Then only will the government have all those ornaments and guarantees, when it is understood to emanate from God as its august and most sacred source.

Leo XIII [i Wrote:Sapientiae Christianae[/i]]
But what applies to individual men applies equally to society-domestic alike and civil. Nature did not form society in order that man should seek in it his last end, but in order that in it and through it he should find suitable aids whereby to attain to his own perfection. If, then, a political government strives after external advantages only, and the achievement of a cultured and prosperous life; if, in administering public affairs, it is wont to put God aside, and show no solicitude for the upholding of moral law, it deflects woefully from its right course and from the injunctions of nature; nor should it be accounted as a society or a community of men, but only as the deceitful imitation or appearance of a society.

In other words, once a State deviates from God it ceases to be legitimate. If that is so, then it follows that an illegitimate secular power could exercise control over a territory and that (being illegitimate) those persons living in that territory would have no duty to allegiance to such a State.

Leo XIII Wrote:But now, a society can neither exist nor be conceived in which there is no one to govern the wills of individuals, in such a way as to make, as it were, one will out of many, and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good; therefore, God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude. And this also is a powerful argument, that those by whose authority the State is administered must be able so to compel the citizens to obedience that it is clearly a sin in the latter not to obey.

I think that's pretty clear that government is necessary, and the Church has never condemned the idea of a state, and never said that the Church should be the government.

Pope Leo mentions leadership plus compulsion to obey - that's government, whether it's a king or the modern state. And even if that government does only a few, minimal things, those still cost money, and it's moral to impose taxes to pay for them.

Obviously if the state commands something immoral, we are to obey God rather than men. That doesn't mean that all taxation is theft, which was the point being discussed.

Leo XIII [i Wrote:Sapientiae Christianae[/i]]
But what applies to individual men applies equally to society-domestic alike and civil. Nature did not form society in order that man should seek in it his last end, but in order that in it and through it he should find suitable aids whereby to attain to his own perfection. If, then, a political government strives after external advantages only, and the achievement of a cultured and prosperous life; if, in administering public affairs, it is wont to put God aside, and show no solicitude for the upholding of moral law, it deflects woefully from its right course and from the injunctions of nature; nor should it be accounted as a society or a community of men, but only as the deceitful imitation or appearance of a society.

In other words, once a State deviates from God it ceases to be legitimate. If that is so, then it follows that an illegitimate secular power could exercise control over a territory and that (being illegitimate) those persons living in that territory would have no duty to allegiance to such a State.

(01-20-2016, 03:51 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote: I'm not a libertarian, I'm a Distributist. There's a bit of overlap, especially in the realm of subsidiarity, but I don't subscribe to the idea of popular sovereignty.

I've always heard the "taxation is theft" argument from libertarians, and if one accepts their principle, it's at least consistent. I'm not familiar with distributism, although I've seen it mentioned enough here, but that's a topic for another thread. I don't agree with popular sovereignty, either, but that's the system we have, at least in theory, and certainly the one that most "taxation is theft" arguers come from.

(01-20-2016, 05:56 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote: In other words, once a State deviates from God it ceases to be legitimate. If that is so, then it follows that an illegitimate secular power could exercise control over a territory and that (being illegitimate) those persons living in that territory would have no duty to allegiance to such a State.

And yet St Paul told the early Christians to be obedient to the Emperor in all things but sin, and for slaves to be obedient to their masters. I don't remember where I read it, but I remember reading something about the morality of revolutions: that while it may be immoral to rebel against one's lawful ruler, once it's done, and the new government is established, it becomes the legitimate government, since, as Pope Leo said, there needs to be some ruler. Despite the wrongness of the French Revolution (or, for that matter, the American), when the French police and courts put someone in jail for stealing or killing, it's moral for them to do so, despite the overthrow of the rightful king and the modern republic's rejection of most things Christian. If American and European governments are illegitimate because of all the immoral things they do, then there is no government, and the Church says that's not the way of society.

If it is a sin to defy authority. aka Sedition. And if Monarchy was in fact a legitimate authority (which it was). How can we defend a government born out of revolution and sedition and the usurping of a legitimate authority with the result of a government founded on principles opposed to Catholicism, by men who advocated against the truth of the Church (Masons) and who's philosophy create an ever changing state of revolution and liberalism?

(01-20-2016, 03:51 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote: I'm not a libertarian, I'm a Distributist. There's a bit of overlap, especially in the realm of subsidiarity, but I don't subscribe to the idea of popular sovereignty.

I've always heard the "taxation is theft" argument from libertarians, and if one accepts their principle, it's at least consistent. I'm not familiar with distributism, although I've seen it mentioned enough here, but that's a topic for another thread. I don't agree with popular sovereignty, either, but that's the system we have, at least in theory, and certainly the one that most "taxation is theft" arguers come from.

(01-20-2016, 05:56 PM)dcmaccabees Wrote: In other words, once a State deviates from God it ceases to be legitimate. If that is so, then it follows that an illegitimate secular power could exercise control over a territory and that (being illegitimate) those persons living in that territory would have no duty to allegiance to such a State.

And yet St Paul told the early Christians to be obedient to the Emperor in all things but sin, and for slaves to be obedient to their masters. I don't remember where I read it, but I remember reading something about the morality of revolutions: that while it may be immoral to rebel against one's lawful ruler, once it's done, and the new government is established, it becomes the legitimate government, since, as Pope Leo said, there needs to be some ruler. Despite the wrongness of the French Revolution (or, for that matter, the American), when the French police and courts put someone in jail for stealing or killing, it's moral for them to do so, despite the overthrow of the rightful king and the modern republic's rejection of most things Christian. If American and European governments are illegitimate because of all the immoral things they do, then there is no government, and the Church says that's not the way of society.

well seems we posted at the same time. theres my answer to my above post lol.

However the point of counter-revolutions is not sedition and continual revolution but a restoration of the proper order. I fail to see how continual revolution is moral. I understand the "once its done its done" argument but that doesn't excuse the act itself.

The modern nation state is an unstable and foolish system of government grounded in garbage philosophy and false reason, instead of being grounded in tradition and eternal principles. It WILL collapse.

Leo XIII Wrote:But now, a society can neither exist nor be conceived in which there is no one to govern the wills of individuals, in such a way as to make, as it were, one will out of many, and to impel them rightly and orderly to the common good; therefore, God has willed that in a civil society there should be some to rule the multitude. And this also is a powerful argument, that those by whose authority the State is administered must be able so to compel the citizens to obedience that it is clearly a sin in the latter not to obey.

I think that's pretty clear that government is necessary, and the Church has never condemned the idea of a state, and never said that the Church should be the government.

Pope Leo mentions leadership plus compulsion to obey - that's government, whether it's a king or the modern state. And even if that government does only a few, minimal things, those still cost money, and it's moral to impose taxes to pay for them.

Obviously if the state commands something immoral, we are to obey God rather than men. That doesn't mean that all taxation is theft, which was the point being discussed.

Pius XI Syllabus Wrote:VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH

39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.

41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu."—Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851

42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.—Ibid.

43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest.—Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them.—Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers.—Allocutions "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851, and "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age.—Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.—Ibid.

49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power.—Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852; "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22, 1855; "Cum saepe," July 26, 1855.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS

56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

Furthermore, the idea that traditional kingdoms and the modern Nation-State are equivalent is woefully wrong. A kingdom is composed of a people, those who share a culture and a societal view. The Nation-State is a geographical imposition. Example: the Kingdom of Naples vs the modern country of Italy. No one would have said that Pope Pius XI or Leo XIII, of all people, would have equated the legitimacy of the Italian State with that of the Papal States...